Jump to content

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez


markstanco

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm just laughing at the whole the US exports white terrorism.  There are for sure white supremacists that probably do or try to export it, but the Muslim jihadist agenda is 100% about exporting terrorism to the entire world.

She’s a fucking retard.   SNL if it was at all fair minded could do a couple skits a week on this fool. The FBI assistant director very clearly explained why they can’t  charge domestic white supremacists with terrorism under the US code.  She couldn’t  comprehend.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

She’s a fucking retard.   SNL if it was at all fair minded could do a couple skits a week on this fool. The FBI assistant director very clearly explained why they can’t  charge domestic white supremacists with terrorism under the US code.  She couldn’t  comprehend.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

She’s a fucking retard.   SNL if it was at all fair minded could do a couple skits a week on this fool. The FBI assistant director very clearly explained why they can’t  charge domestic white supremacists with terrorism under the US code.  She couldn’t  comprehend.  

Uh, counselor, have you litigated anything ever? Do you not ask setup questions precisely like this, i.e., playing dumb when you really already know the answer? I think she obviously did comprehend it (e.g., "that may be congress's fault"). The point here: there is a hole that needs to be fixed by Congress. She is in Congress. Now, she has the evidence she needs to say "hey, FBI said there is a gap, let's close it". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

She’s a fucking retard.   SNL if it was at all fair minded could do a couple skits a week on this fool. The FBI assistant director very clearly explained why they can’t  charge domestic white supremacists with terrorism under the US code.  She couldn’t  comprehend.  

you're missing on the trump thread where a real retard is actually fucking up the country, you fucking mentally spavined hypocrite.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Uh, counselor, have you litigated anything ever? Do you not ask setup questions precisely like this, i.e., playing dumb when you really already know the answer? I think she obviously did comprehend it (e.g., "that may be congress's fault"). The point here: there is a hole that needs to be fixed by Congress. She is in Congress. Now, she has the evidence she needs to say "hey, FBI said there is a gap, let's close it". 

Um, did you read her tweet double downing on her fucktardedness?   It is the opposite of what you are claiming.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

So whataboutism?  

And yeah, the country is in terrible shape.

No, not whataboutism. It’s about growing a backbone, putting the country first, and waiting to see you and all the other trumpkins calling out all the stupid shit that comes out of trumps mouth every day (how do tariffs work?!!!!!!!).

Every. Single. Time that he does it. Be a man and defend him. Until then, please stop being a hypocrite and criticizing any other politician. Our country would be better for it if you and every other MAGA wearer had an ounce of shame.

And our country is committing child torture, so yeah, that’s terrible. Sorry, I do have a soul. 

Edited by achooloco
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She’s a fucking retard.   SNL if it was at all fair minded could do a couple skits a week on this fool. The FBI assistant director very clearly explained why they can’t  charge domestic white supremacists with terrorism under the US code.  She couldn’t  comprehend.  

Oh the irony.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This freshman sure has ruffled some of you guys’ feathers. Her power was limited until you rubes gave her hours and hours of Fox News coverage and couldn’t keep her name out of your mouths. She’s masterfully deploying many of the same tactics Trump does on social media. People keep screaming about how someone more nefarious and adept than Trump will take over one day and abuse the office even worse— what if that isn’t someone from the right? What if that’s AOC? Trumpkins will be threatening to move to Russia with the quickness. I’d laugh if it weren’t so damn scary that this is where we are as a country.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question should be added, being afraid someone who chose to disregard our immigration laws may choose not to fill out a census is not a reason to deny transparency.

We the people need the actual numbers so we can put a true cost on illegal immigration from Education, Health Care, housing, legal services and personal.  Then vote on facts

  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The question should be added, being afraid someone who chose to disregard our immigration laws may choose not to fill out a census is not a reason to deny transparency.

We the people need the actual numbers so we can put a true cost on illegal immigration from Education, Health Care, housing, legal services and personal.  Then vote on facts

You won't get actual numbers if you include the citizenship question.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The question should be added, being afraid someone who chose to disregard our immigration laws may choose not to fill out a census is not a reason to deny transparency.

We the people need the actual numbers so we can put a true cost on illegal immigration from Education, Health Care, housing, legal services and personal.  Then vote on facts

This is not the purpose of the census.  If you want those numbers, do a different poll.  The purpose of the census is to get an accurate count of people living in the US.  You won't get that if you include a citizenship question.  Your belief that the US Government should subvert the constitutional purpose for the census and use it to collect data on illegal immigration just proves your disdain for the Constitution.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

This is not the purpose of the census.  If you want those numbers, do a different poll.  The purpose of the census is to get an accurate count of people living in the US.  You won't get that if you include a citizenship question.  Your belief that the US Government should subvert the constitutional purpose for the census and use it to collect data on illegal immigration just proves your disdain for the Constitution.  

No argument from me on that. Then make congressional districts based on citizenship, and not just people living in your district.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

This is not the purpose of the census.  If you want those numbers, do a different poll.  The purpose of the census is to get an accurate count of people living in the US.  You won't get that if you include a citizenship question.  Your belief that the US Government should subvert the constitutional purpose for the census and use it to collect data on illegal immigration just proves your disdain for the Constitution.  

Citizenship was asked for many years.  It was last ask in 1950.

Quote

The 1950 Census was the last one to ask all U.S. households whether its dwellers were U.S. citizens.

...Politifact.

1940 Census form.

Note that it ask other questions, such as education employment and how much money you made.

 

In 1970, they even asked about your toilet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No argument from me on that. Then make congressional districts based on citizenship, and not just people living in your district.

I'm not sure how that would work since the number of Reps is based upon persons.  What do you do with the leftovers, if there are any?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 77horn said:

Citizenship was asked for many years.  It was last ask in 1950.

1940 Census form.

Note that it ask other questions, such as education employment and how much money you made.

 

In 1970, they even asked about your toilet

I suggest you take some time to actually articulate the point you think you are making.  Because it doesn't appear that you're making any point relevant to my post.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

I suggest you take some time to actually articulate the point you think you are making.  Because it doesn't appear that you're making any point relevant to my post.  

You stated that asking citizenship will result in an inaccurate count.  I pointed out that questioning citizenship is nothing new, and that the census bureau asks many questions that are not part of a count of residents.

And if you had bother to review the links, you would have seen that the planed question is:

Is this person a citizen of the United States?"

  • Yes, born in the United States.
  • Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas.
  • Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents.
  • Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization (add year).
  •  No, not a U.S. citizen.

This is not substantially different that what they asked in 1950.  No part of  the question asks whether an immigrant came "legally"

I suggest you take to time to read, rather just stating talking points you've been handed.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 77horn said:

You stated that asking citizenship will result in an inaccurate count.  I pointed out that questioning citizenship is nothing new, and that the census bureau asks many questions that are not part of a count of residents.

And if you had bother to review the links, you would have seen that the planed question is:

Is this person a citizen of the United States?"

  • Yes, born in the United States.
  • Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas.
  • Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents.
  • Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization (add year).
  •  No, not a U.S. citizen.

This is not substantially different that what they asked in 1950.  No part of  the question asks whether an immigrant came "legally"

I suggest you take to time to read, rather just stating talking points you've been handed.

But if you are interested in getting an accurate count, you will remove the question that will dissuade undocumented immigrants from answering the question. The citizenship question serves no purpose for making an accurate head count of people in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 77horn said:

You stated that asking citizenship will result in an inaccurate count.  I pointed out that questioning citizenship is nothing new, and that the census bureau asks many questions that are not part of a count of residents.

And if you had bother to review the links, you would have seen that the planed question is:

Is this person a citizen of the United States?"

  • Yes, born in the United States.
  • Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas.
  • Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents.
  • Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization (add year).
  •  No, not a U.S. citizen.

This is not substantially different that what they asked in 1950.  No part of  the question asks whether an immigrant came "legally"

I suggest you take to time to read, rather just stating talking points you've been handed.

 

 

The census bureau asks many questions that are not part of a count of residents, sure.  I'll put aside whether they should and just focus on the question at issue.  This is a question that objective data has showed will result in an inaccurate account of the population.  The purpose of the census is the get an accurate count of the population.  The purpose of the new question is to obtain information on immigration, which is immaterial to the purpose of the census.  Should the census include a question that will undermine its constitutional purpose in order to get additional information that is immaterial to that constitutional purpose?  Absolutely not.  

You seem to be making an argument that a bad act in the past excuses a bad act in the future.  That's just straight up bullshit.  Regardless of what was done in the 1950s, this isn't the 1950s and we know that including the question would undermine the purpose of the census.  Therefore, it should not be included in the census.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, 77horn said:

Citizenship was asked for many years.  It was last ask in 1950.

1940 Census form.

Note that it ask other questions, such as education employment and how much money you made.

 

In 1970, they even asked about your toilet

This argument doesn't really hold much water IMO. We were literally an open-border country up until the late 80s/early 90s. I don't think we started construction on the physical border wall until Clinton in '94.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 77horn said:

In 1970, they even asked about your toilet

 

 

they kept asking about toilets through 2015 in the american community survey

https://www.nola.com/business/2014/04/pew_research_foundation.html

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/questionnaire-archive.html

 

 

edit: the ACS has a citizenship question which is probably sufficient to get the data chickensandwich wants.   especially since its done every year rather than just every 10 years. 

 

edit2: the CPS, which is done every month, also has citizenship and country of birth questions.  also sufficient to get the data chickensandwich wants. 

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

i could be wrong, but i think asking the citizenship question in 1950 might be a little different than asking it now, under an administration that is currently putting brown people in cages.  maybe i'm overthinking it.

You think police were more sympathetic to illegal aliens in the 50's ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Lol, not even something she voted on.

 

I’m aware. I just like her double talk and justification. Congress needs these raises so they’ll be less likely to enter lobbying or take advantages of any loopholes they might know about or insider trade.  Lololol. 

She sure fell right in line on that one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GRHorn said:

I’m aware. I just like her double talk and justification. Congress needs these raises so they’ll be less likely to enter lobbying or take advantages of any loopholes they might know about or insider trade.  Lololol. 

She sure fell right in line on that one. 

No, they need raises for the same reasons you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No, they need raises for the same reasons you do.

1) they don’t “need” raises. 

2) she mentioned multiple times how raises were needed to keep Congressmen and women from being tempted by corruption. That’s bullshit.  I don’t “need” a raise to keep me from doing illegal shit. 

She’s right it is bad optics and for good reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

1) they don’t “need” raises. 

2) she mentioned multiple times how raises were needed to keep Congressmen and women from being tempted by corruption. That’s bullshit.  I don’t “need” a raise to keep me from doing illegal shit. 

She’s right it is bad optics and for good reason. 

You don't "need" a raise either, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You think police were more sympathetic to illegal aliens in the 50's ?

are we talking about cops now?

instead of reverting to old, broken systems, maybe we should focus on improving the accuracy of the census, which revolves around actually counting the people who live here.

if toilet questions skew the numbers towards inaccuracy, we should do away with those too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2019 at 10:25 AM, Johnny Sack said:

Thanks W

Here's a thought for you:  W left the country in such bad shape that people were willing to vote for some black guy who had never held any office before in the hopes he could rescue the economy (among other things).  That's how bad it was.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • hayden_horn changed the title to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez


×
×
  • Create New...